All Quiet on the Western Front (2022) | Review

 16/12/22.  

 Watched. My rating: 9.4/10. 

 After spending four months with Niffeneger's romance novel, The Time Traveler's wife, I dove in headfirst in Erich Maria Remarque's 1928 German novel, All Quiet on the Western Front and ended up bingeing it over a week as it became an instant favorite of mine and it reminded me of what truly great literature is capable of. So naturally I was pumped up to watch it's film adaptations, especially this one considering it has the advantage of modern technology over the previous iterations. And I'm so glad to announce that it not only met my expectations, but its also among the best films of this year.

 The story follows Paul Baumer, a 19 year old who enlists in the army with his schoolmates as their teachers, parents, neighbors and the whole previous generation eggs them on in the name of glory, heroism, god and country. But the front has a different plan for them with its reality...  

 Right from the very first shot, we get a clear sense that Edward Berger (director) and the team aren't interested in repeating what's been done before, other than a reference to the 1930 production (A soldier lying g dead with his hands blown away, probably still clutching the barb wire). Lesley Paterson has changed the original story in her screenplay, enough to exclude the scenes which the Lewis Milestone's 1930 adaptation had already taken advantage of and adds an entirely new narrative which runs parallel to main action portraying the German and French delegates hashing out the terms for an armistice. This not only provides for a much better contextual understanding for the audience, but also a background to cut away to from the action sequences.

 The film opens with serene shots of the woods and a mother fox feeding her pups in their burrow. The scene proceeds to hover over to a desolated land covered with dead bodies, dead horses, broken equipment, scattered guns artillery before dropping down in a trench where shells screech around them, clumps Earth rain down on the miserable soldiers as they yell and run up and down the line to climb over and attack the enemy. A scared young soldier somehow musters up enough strength to run towards the the direction of the bullets and, very soon, he bites the dust. His name was Heinrich. 

 The film cuts to black and the title comes on. Heinrich's uniform is taken off of him to be re-patched and his name tag is replaced with Paul's. We see women operating sewing machines which sound like the firing of a machine gun, implying how women, and every civilian, were serving at their own personal fronts. There's the individual's honor in war, in all its glory; one name replaced with the other.

 That whole bit wasn't in the book and the fact that many such scenes and details are added which enrich the experience deserves all the praise its getting.

 The cast is composed of mostly young talent, unknown talent which helps you focus on the story. Yes Daniel Bruhl is in this, the one and only Fredrick Zoller, but only because he produced it. But Felix Kammerer proves to be a very good Paul Baumer, lending himself to vulnerable innocence and hardened stature of veterans, and his chemistry with Albrecht Schuch, who plays Kat, provides for a rather touching relationship for the audience to relate to.  

 Now, to talk about the action sequences, we must address the chilling score by Volker Bertelmann. Volker has given us the best soundtrack of his career to this date. We enter the battlefield aurally before witnessing it visually by the threatening blares of the music which sound like something out of a monster movie and makes the horrors of war that much more palpable. And the action scenes themselves are incredible as well, with long takes and intimate shots of the characters, putting you right in the middle of the cross fire. It even made me flinch once. But the highlight of the film for me was the sequence in which the German forces encounter enemy tanks for the first time, only to be followed by flamethrowers. The visceral sound design surrounds you with all its creaks and groans of metal and wood, give the atmosphere a detailed texture. Its among the most anti-war action scenes of all time. 

 I'm not sure of the historical accuracy of the film overall, but it seems authentic enough for me to buy into its reality. But that's not the goal that it sets itself anyway. The aim was to encapsulate the dread, the paranoia, of being stuck in the trenches and it succeeds in doing so. It had my heart thumping in many scenes and I can't say that about many war movies.

 It changes the ending from the book, and it still works. I think that the book had a better, bleaker conclusion which portrayed the pointlessness of war in a much more poetic sense, yet retaining a sense of realism. The film ditches realism at the very end to get a bit more satisfying ending for the audience. Again, it still works, but I prefer the book's version.

 The film ended, credits flashed in silence and all I could hear was my own palpitation, before the rasping sounds of the harmonium came back, as if the ghosts of the past wars were breathing down our necks, like Gerard Duval, the Frenchman that Paul kills.

 

 For me, a ten on ten film, a perfect film, is one in which I wouldn't change a single thing. And this one came very close to being one, but I have my issues with some of the editing choices in it. Many scenes are cut off just a few seconds earlier, which jarred me out of the movie. For example, the scene in which Paul and his friends find the company of young recruits they were looking for in a warehouse/factory, and the scene just cuts off. There's clearly some essential shots which didn't make the cut because of which the film feels just a tad incomplete. Perhaps adding those missing 10 to 15 minutes worth of footage would do wonders for the film, even though its runtime already sits at two and a half hours.

 All Quiet on the Western Front will leave you dumbfounded. Clearly among the best of the year.

Generation War (Unsere Mutter, Unsere Vater; 2013) | Limited Series Review

 17/July/2022. Watched. 

 My rating: 9/10. 

 Every summer I tend to watch a lot of war movies; the hot weather does  incite the urge to return to the battlefields where the enemy is kill-able, unlike the heat wave. In 2020 I watched Schindler's List, Full Metal Jacket, Apocalypse Now etc. Band of Brothers in '21. The raucous atmosphere that war films create comforts me somehow. Call of Duty 2 was, I think, my proper introduction to World War 2. It was just amazing. It still is, to think that it actually happened. And watching something in this genre always brings back the memories of that game. "MG-42 BEHIND THOSE SANDBAGS!".

 I've always been fascinated with Nazis. The hoards upon hoards of nameless Germans that come in these games and movies in the form of "The Enemy" instilled a strong sense of curiosity in me. Why are they the bad guys? How can such a large population become a puppet for an extremist? These were some of the questions which popped into my young brain as a child. 

 Among my favorite films of all time is Inglorious Basterds (2009) in which the Nazi is shown as a weasel, a backstabber, a schemer and a beast. But, in War Generation, the Nazi is shown as a victim. At least some Nazis, the average soldier.  Even it's original title, "Unsere Mutter, Unsere Vater" (Our Mothers, Our Fathers) humanizes the supporters of NSDAP. Hitler, after all, like any other politician, was elected. 

 Consisting of only 3 episodes, an hour and a half each, it tells the story of 5 friends. A Lieutenant and his younger brother who is also conscripted in the war even though he has no interest in it for he is a reader and an intellectual. The other three being a singer, a nurse and a jew. War changes them. Brings out the worst.

 Now, the way its filmed is nothing revolutionary. As you'd imagine, it takes inspiration from Saving Private Ryan (1998) & Band of Brothers (2001). But the fact that it tells the story of the German side, in this very American manner of filmmaking, it helps you empathize with them that much more. And I love it for it. 

 Everyone of the five friends is screwed by their country in one or another. The soldiers are shell-shocked, the singer gets abused and gets thrown in prison, the nurse witnesses the horrendous aftermath of battles and the jew, well, y'know... Everyone is humanized. The nurse, who was the sweetest person in the beginning, says some racist stuff and commits a sin which she later regrets. But you understand them. You feel sorry for them. Its a tragedy that they were indoctrinated with such hatred. After all, they are your mothers and fathers.

 Even though melodrama is found here in spades, it works. It has a strong sense of earnestness to it. It did made me well up. The cast here is terrific. The ones who caught my attention the most were Miriam Stein (Charlotte the nurse) and Ludwig Trepte (the jew). Sylvester Groth, who played Joseph Goebbels in Inglorious Basterds also showed up as a stone cold SS officer. A couple of days ago, I randomly started watching a German series, Deutschland '83, and I was so happy to see that Groth and Trepte had roles in that show. I just might continue watching it. 

 The show boasts of some great set pieces and action sequences. There's a scene where partisans hide and wait to ambush a train going to a death camp. In another, civilians are forced to walk through a mine field to clear the way for the German soldier. Another had the trenches and the camp bombed because one of the main characters kept smoking even after noticing an enemy aircraft. But the most impressive thing for me was it's editing and how it maintained a rapid pace and intensity throughout its four and a half hour runtime.  

 Unsere Mutter, Unsere Vater is an essential watch if you're interested in the genre. My neck and my back hurts, I shouldn't type on the bed anymore. Oh well...

Paths of Glory (1957) | Review

 9/July/2022. Watched. 

 My rating: 8.5/10. 

 Stanley Kubrick has always been one of those directors whose filmography I've been pushing off for the longest time. I talked about the reason behind it in the piece I wrote about Bergman's Persona (1966); the fact that I wish to appreciate them as much as everybody else. Thankfully, I've now shed that worrisome trait and now I'm ready to confront all films head on. 

 Paths of Glory is my fourth Kubrick film. I can't remember whether the first one was The Shining (1980) or 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) (I'd wager on TS being the first). Then, after a two years gap, I watched Full Metal Jacket (1987) on the 8th of April, 2020; by this point I had begun writing reviews on Letterboxd, hence the exact date. Its 9th of July, 2022, and once again after a dry spell of two years I plunge into his movies.

 POG tells the true dramatized story of three soldiers who were court-martialed and were charged with cowardice, all because of the foolish commands of the higher-ups. Kirk Douglas, whom I last saw in 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (1954), plays Col. Dax, of the French army who tries his best to save his men.

 The film begins with credits with white glow around the text, the sort you see in movies from the Citizen Kane era; 1940s. Because of that, and the way the actors spoke and the way the scenes were blocked, the way it's scored, the flick feels ten years older than it really is (1957). Rather Hitchcockian. When you look at this film and then look at Full Metal Jacket, its unbelievable how much Kubrick was able to evolve the age.

 It's sets did hinted at a tight budget. I don't mean to say that their quality was subpar, but what I mean to say is that they were quite economical. The trenches, the halls, the wires, most of the frames use darkness to lend themselves to infinity. To make the world feel real, landscape shots are put in place and the most lavish the sets ever get are in the halls in which Dax talks with his superiors or in which aristocrats participate in ball dances while young men tango with death on the front line.

 Young men. A gripe that I've with World War movies is that they cast actors in their 30s, 40s and 50s as soldiers. Most of the soldiers who volunteered or were conscripted were very young, barely men; 17, 18, 19, 20 year old boys. Many of them hadn't even begun shaving yet. And in the history of warfare, that's always been the case. The "elders", the "wise" men, the leaders encourage their sons to go die in the wars. For glory, for king, for country. 

 In one very tense scene, Col. Dax in an argument with his General quotes Samuel Johnson; "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel" I find it to be so true. Fanatical patriotism and pride in one's own race and religion can be observed in the current political climate of India. And its frustrating to see the idiocy of these self proclaimed virtuous beings. All over the social media, on my feeds, in my friend list, I can't go a day without witnessing such behavior. It makes me sad, because they're my friends, family, and the fact that they've been so indoctrinated by social media, which acts as an echo chamber, clearly skews their perspective. I'm certainly virtue signalling right now, even though I don't mean to.

 That's the thing, innit? You can't change anyone's mind once it's made up. I've seen people write "Brahman, "Thakur", "Muslim" in their Instagram bios. And each time I wanna ask them, "Is that where your personality ends? Is that where your whole being ends? Is that all you are, a made up category that you've boxed yourself into?" And when because of your own foolishness you end up discussing it, they get incredibly aggressive and start using abusive ad hominem. It sours the relationship. They value a belief more than a relationship. Humans don't like to be wrong. Which is understandable, because once upon a time, in the jungle, being wrong meant death. People need to stop marrying their ideas.

  The loss of empathy is the greatest casualty of war and this effect can be seen reproduced on the battlefields of social media; the place where we're bombarded with opinions and "news" and virtue signalling and pretense and the fake relationships. 

 Coming back to the film which was banned in France until 1975 for it's critique of the French army, the shot which I must mention here is when Dax falls back to the trenches to encourage the men who stayed behind to proceed. The camera moves with him with the trench walls shifting on the sides. Dead men lay around with their bayonets. Above, a few shells drop and dirt and smoke puffs up in clouds and one of the dead men blinks and flinches at them. He got scared whilst dying. The same could be said about the many men who fought in the wars. Terror eats them hollow like a webbed fly.

 And I don't think that the blink was a mistake either, because Kubrick is the sort of guy who shoots a million takes until he gets it right. That whole sequence, especially the first shot, is the money shot.

 This paragraph contains a spoiler. The three prisoners are executed at the end I was fully expecting Douglas to save the day because of the film's 1940s' look. And the bar scene at the end where the French soldiers are shown as uncivilized savages as they harass a young German woman and force her to sing. But once she starts singing and the boys fall silent and soon begin humming with her and welling up with tears, the audience realizes that the barbarous behavior is but a facade under which they've concealed their empathy. Their humanity. For there is no place for sentimentality in the battlefield.  

 The soldiers' tears act both as the evidence of the goodness within and the only catharsis the film provides us with.

 Before I end this piece, I must say that Kirk Douglas is the man! So cool. He reminds me of Steve McQueen.

 Paths of glory is a very literary film, not only because it was adapted from Humphrey Cobb's novel of the same name, but also because Stanley Kubrick is a director with literary sensibillities. His films feel like going through some prestigious prose.

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) | Review

26/June/2022. Watched. 

 My rating: 6/10. 

 Every MCU project since Endgame, except for No Way Home, has left me at best feeling underwhelmed and at worst frustrated. Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is not an exception.

 Look, we've all heard how terrible the Marvel template is. How creativity goes to drown herself in Kevin Feigi's well of restraint. And when I first heard that Sam Raimi was returning to direct a superhero film, I was disappointed. Not only because I find myself experiencing extreme superhero fatigue, but also because I knew that Raimi would barely be visible in the film, coming to the surface at regular but brief intervals. And that's exactly what it is.

 Consider the action scenes in the original Spider-Man films. The times square battle, the tram full of kids and Mary Jane falling towards their death, the train full of civilians men, women and children rolling towards the sea, even the bystanders are endangered during a car chase. There were stakes. They made us care and flinch and thrilled when the hero saved the day. It felt real, in it's own fantastical way. 

 But now when you look at the fight scenes in DSITMOM (terrible title for a movie by the way), which are choreographed way before a director is even hired, they feel hollow. In spite of their millions of dollars worth of VFX, they end up feeling lifeless. Why is that? Its because we know nothing bad of actual consequence is going to happen to this world that we're seeing. Because we have been seeing this same world for the last fourteen years. Things only seem to be getting better for this world, if not for the bigger monsters. For narrative to have some weight, the characters and the world needs to worsen as it progresses, not flourish. 

 Take a look at Spider-Man 2 (2004), for instance. Directed by none other than Raimi himself, and written by Alvin Sergeant, its a masterclass at how chasing your protagonist up a tree and throwing rocks at them makes the audience root for them even more. The worse the situations they find themselves in, the more interesting the story as a whole gets. But the fact that the MCU films are rather lucrative intellectual properties first and foremost, they come with a ceiling to which the tension can escalate. They can't risk to gut their cash cow. And all the more power to them for it. But don't expect me to stay around for that. 

 The cast is alright. I don't understand what am I supposed to admire in these big budget movies nowadays when it comes to acting. We've seen a lot of Benedict Cumberbatch in this past decade; Sherlock, The Imitation Game, The Power of the Dog and the hundred different MCU titles; hence we know, you know, exactly what you'll be getting when going into this, so I needn't talk about any of it. 

 Elizabeth Olsen steers her performance into a more unhinged territory and finally becomes a complete villain (which she had already became in WandaVision but the writers refused to treat her as one at the end). And I liked her character the best in this, as she finally gets to complete her arc and finish her story. I hope that they don't bring her back - which they will sooner or later - because it was a pretty good ending for her character. 

 This paragraph will contain spoilers, so skip if you haven't seen it yet. I smiled once in this entire affair and that was when Hayley Atwell and Jim, James, Jimothy from The Office (John Krasinski) showed up as Captain Carter and Reed Richards respectively. I love both the actors, their scenes were short but nice. Their scenes weren't written very well though, the totality of my enjoyment came from their mere presence on the screen. Also, Sir Patrick Stewart also reprised his role as Charles Xavier. He rolls in the frame with a rendition of X-Men animated series' theme playing in the background, but was it worth it? Logan was a perfect send off for the character, we didn't need to see him again. But alright. And the Bruce Campbell cameo could've been so much better; his post credit scene was fun though. Man... he has gotten old.

 There were many callbacks to the Holy Trilogy, with the way the shots were composed, the dialogues were written and the music was composed. Danny Elfman's new score for this film sounds eerily similar to how his score sounded for the Spider-Man movies. Which makes it forgettable for me, by reminding me of the other movies. Its good though. The cheesy piano bangs were fun. Plus, the ending for Wanda is exactly the same as Doctor Octopus in Spider-Man 2. There you go.

 Another thing which bugs me is that these films feel agenda-driven. Almost qualifying as woke-propaganda. For example, during a scene in a church, in a single frame you can see people of all races and religions sitting and smiling as the wedding proceeds. Now, I'm not saying that it can't or doesn't happen. What I'm saying is that it feels forced, pandering and it makes me cringe. And guess what, when you travel to an alternate New York City, its an envirmentalist utopia. I'm all for environmentalism, but when you put social messages in such a blunt manner where it doesn't belong, it feels odd. 

 I wonder if Raimi decides to make his Spider-Man 4, would it really be "his" Spider-Man 4? Or would the studios dictate it's fate? I doubt if it would have that same cinematic feeling. Sam Raimi will always have a special place in our hearts for my generation, but perhaps his best work is behind him. I hope he proves me wrong.